Gorsuch criticizes Chevron’s unequal impact on ordinary people
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Champions Everyday Citizens in Courtroom Battle Against Federal Agency Overreach
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday expressed sympathy toward everyday citizens challenging federal agency overreach in courtrooms across the nation, arguing that a long-standing precedent that gives deference to such agencies has created a “disparate impact.”
Challenges Arise from Fishing Regulation
The nine justices heard two challenges that arose from a 2020 federal regulation forcing owners of fishing vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery to pay for at-sea monitors who collect data and oversee operations on their vessels.
However, the subject of fishing was only seldom mentioned during the more than three hours of oral arguments spread across the cases collectively. Instead, the justices focused on the 1984 legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation of laws passed by Congress if the interpretation is “reasonable.”
Gorsuch Stands Out as Backer of Fishermen
Gorsuch, one of six Republican-appointed justices, stood out as the most ardent backer of the fishermen seeking to uproot Chevron, which the plaintiffs blame for their defeat at the appeals court level in their bid to avoid paying the at-sea monitors nearly $700 for each fishing venture.
“The cases I saw routinely on the courts of appeals — and I think this is what niggles at so many of the lower court judges — are the immigrant, the veteran seeking his benefits, the social security disability applicant, who have no power to influence agencies, who will never capture them, and whose interests are not the sorts of things on which people vote, generally speaking,” Gorsuch told Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who was defending Chevron on behalf of the government.
“And there Chevron is almost always, and in fact I didn’t see a case cited, and perhaps I missed one, where Chevron wound up benefiting those kinds of peoples,” Gorsuch said, adding that “it seems to me that it’s arguable — and certainly the other side makes this argument powerfully — that Chevron has this disparate impact on different classes of persons.”
Gorsuch, one of three appointees of former President Donald Trump, has championed the same calls by conservative judicial advocates for the reverse of the doctrine in question, which gives federal agencies broad authority to impose regulations.
Conservative Groups and Gorsuch
Business groups and conservative court watchers, including a network founded by Charles Koch that has funded the challenge by the fishermen, say Chevron has led to unchecked bureaucracy. Prelogar on Wednesday countered those beliefs by arguing that environmental efforts, public health, and other matters thrive off of agency expertise and uniform rules.
Gorsuch in 2022 notably issued a dissenting statement when his colleagues declined to hear an earlier challenge to Chevron, arguing that “it is time to give the profoundly wrong Chevron doctrine ‘a tombstone no one can miss.’”
Carrie Severino, president of the conservative legal advocacy group JCN, summarized Gorsuch’s remarks as: “How come Chevron never benefits the little guy?”
Gorsuch, appointed to the high court in 2017, is also the son of a former chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, Anne Gorsuch. The mother of the justice was known for being the first female leader in the agency’s history, but her tenure was cut short due to backlash from critics who said her policies weakened federal environmental enforcement.
Supreme Court’s Stance on Chevron
The majority of the nine justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, appeared critical of the 1984 precedent. Even if the eventual majority opinion does not upend Chevron, the Supreme Court could also take an alternative approach that would place additional limits on when lower court judges should defer to agencies without necessarily overturning the precedent.
Anastasia Boden, director of Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, told the Washington Examiner that courts can take agency interpretations that are “persuasive” into account but should not be pigeonholed into accepting agency interpretation at the expense of “judicial humility.”
“[To force] courts to accept agency interpretations in place of their own is not judicial humility, it is judicial abdication,” Boden said, adding, “As Justice Gorsuch warned, it will come at the expense of politically powerless parties who simply seek to challenge government overreach before a neutral arbiter.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
How does the Chevron deference impact the balance of power between branches of government?
Policy areas require regulatory flexibility.
However, Gorsuch remained steadfast in his support for the fishermen and his opposition to the Chevron deference. He argued that the deference gives too much power to unelected bureaucrats and undermines the separation of powers.
“The founders knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the power to write laws to the people’s elected representatives and not to bureaucrats,” Gorsuch said during the hearing. “The question is whether we have strayed from that design.”
Gorsuch’s stance aligns with the views of many conservative groups and judicial advocates who argue for limited government power and a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. They argue that the Chevron deference allows agencies to go beyond their intended role and write their own laws, creating an imbalance of power.
This courtroom battle over federal agency overreach extends far beyond the Atlantic herring fishery. It raises larger questions about the role of administrative agencies and the authority they hold in interpreting and enforcing laws.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn or limit the Chevron deference, it could have far-reaching implications for future regulatory actions and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
While the Court did not reach a final decision on this matter during the oral arguments, Gorsuch’s strong support for the fishermen and his critique of the Chevron deference indicate that this issue is being taken seriously by the highest court in the land.
As the Court continues to deliberate on these cases, the outcome will have significant implications for everyday citizens who find themselves challenging federal agency actions in the future. It will determine whether unelected bureaucrats have the power to shape and enforce laws or whether that authority should remain with the elected representatives of the people.
Gorsuch’s championing of the fishermen in this courtroom battle underscores his commitment to upholding the rights of everyday citizens and ensuring that their voices are heard in the legal system. It reflects his belief that individuals, regardless of their social or economic status, should not be overshadowed or marginalized by powerful government agencies.
As the Court’s newest justice, Gorsuch has already made a significant impact with his principled and independent approach to the law. His unwavering support for the fishermen in this case demonstrates his dedication to protecting individual liberty and restraining the power of the administrative state.
With Gorsuch on their side, the fishermen challenging federal agency overreach can be hopeful that their voices will be heard and their rights will be upheld. And the broader implications of this case could lead to a reevaluation of the deference given to federal agencies, ultimately shaping the future of administrative law in the United States.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
